Sunday, June 30, 2024

ADORNMENT— WHAT SOME SAY— WHAT I REPLY!!

 

Women's Adornment - an Answer

What some say - what I reply

WOMEN'S ADORMENT?


INTRODUCTION

Richard C. Nickels (who founded Giving and Sharing) has set forth
the case AGAINST the use of MAKE-UP by Christian women, in what
is the best paper on this position I have seen to date. He has
not though convinced me that his is the correct stance to take,
and because of this I present to those who desire to find the
truth my research and reply. I give what could be termed "the
other side of the coin" to this topic.
While I disagree with Mr.Nickels' position on the use of MAKE-
UP, I do agree with him on many other points he has set forth,
and his study is of value for this reason alone.
It is hoped that between what Richard Nickels has written and
what I have written, the reader will find the truth.

To avoid repetition Mr. Nickels will be referred to also by the
titles:   Mr.N - R.C.N.  as well as Richard Nickels.

As my reply is POINTED ( 1.2.3.etc. ) the reader should study
BOTH papers at the same time, point by point.



MY ANSWERS

I. This is Israel -- typified by an "exceeding beautiful"
developed young lady. God mentions enough things that are
associated with feminine beauty for us to get the point. Is it
needful to mention ALL things that make a woman "beautiful"? God
did not feel He had to mention the plucking of the eyebrow, or
shaving the legs or under the arms, or shaping the fingernails.
Because these are not mentioned does not imply or teach that they
are not a part of feminine beauty -- so, likewise, the use of
make-up not here specifically stated does not teach that its use
is SIN or against God's wishes.
I do not know, but perhaps Mr.Nickels believes it is SIN for a
woman to shave her legs or under her arms or pluck her eyebrows,
as this would be changing her "natural beauty" and in another ways
"covering up" what God gave her, whereby leading her to vain
deception over men.

2. As Richard Nickels states here and elsewhere JEWELRY is
approved of by God.

3. If MAKE-UP is associated with the WHORE as R.C.N. would
have us believe and so is shown to be SIN, should we not also
discard these other things used in harlotry and idolatry?

4. a) As to the accuracy of Mr.Nichels' statement I ask the
reader to study CLARKE'S BIBLE COMMENTARY on Matthew 5:18.
b) Vowel points were not added to the Hebrew until the 6th
century A.D. (see Halley's Bible Handbook - New Revised Edition
p.409).
"A peculiarity of the Hebrew alphabet is that the letters are all
consonants ... So long as Hebrew was a spoken language no other
symbols than these 22 letters were used. It was not until the 7th
century A.D. at the earlies that the well known elaborate system
of signs to represent the vowels and other sounds was invented." 
(I.S.B.E. Vol.3 p.1834). There was no "inspired vowel points
for the official Temple scroll" before or at the time of Christ. 

These UNinspired vowel points were added to the official received
text to which Jesus gave His approval, about 6 or 7 centuries
later.
c) Now read Isaiah 3:16 from ADAM CLARKE'S COMMENTARY: Clarke
says it was the MASORETES that pointed it (6,7 century A.D.) as
if it were from SAKAR, but he takes it to be from SHAKAR. Note
his comment.
d) The authoritative COMPLETE HEBREW/ENGLISH DICTIONARY by
Alcolay defines SAGAR as first "to ogle, wink, glance" and only
last as "paint the eyes."

Now notice these HEBREW/ENGLISH Dictionaries:

THEOLOGICAL WORDBOOK of the OT. Vol.2 p.883 "(SAGAR) OGLE. This
verb occurs only once in the Piel (Isa.3:16)."

STRONG'S CONCORDANCE (#8265) "SAW-KAR; a prim. root; to OGLE,
i.e. blink coquettishly: -- WANTON."

Some other translations render Isaiah 3:16: "and ROVING wanton
eyes" FENTON "and with undisciplined (flirtations and alluring)
eyes" AMPLIFIED BIBLE "... and OGLING eyes" MODERN LANGUAGE
"...are always FLIRTING" GOOD NEWS BIBLE "with wanton eyes that
rove among the crowds to catch the glances of men" LIVING BIBLE
"GLANCING wantonly with their eyes" RSV.

The CONTEXT agrees with the above:

The daughters of Zion are HAUGHTY (attitude of mind) and so they
do certain physical things with their bodies. They hold their neck
and head in a sexy way -- they OGLE and FLIRT with their eyes --
they WALK in a sexually arousing way to men.
Even if WANTON does mean "painted eyes" is it wrong in itself for
a woman to put on make-up because these haughty whore-ish women
of Israel did? Is it wrong for a Christian woman to "trip nicely"
(mrg. KJV for mincing) as she walks, or is she to walk like a
flat-footed pregnant duck? Is it wrong for a woman of God to put
on chains, bracelets, earrings, changeable apparel, fine linen,
because the haughty ones do? Is it wrong and sin for Christian
women to smell sweet, have well set hair and look beautiful
because other ungodly women do?
I think not!

The haughty women in this passage of Isaiah were using these
things in a deliberate attitude of not only sexuality but proud
self-assertiveness in the things they possessed -- an attitude of
"look at all I've got, who needs God or His laws." Just as the
men had forgotten God, had put their trust in their strength and
armies, and would fall in war (v.25) so the self-trusting, vain
women would come to shame also (v.26).

5. There is nothing in Proverbs 6:23-26 about make-up on the eyes
or any other part of the face, yet Mr.R.C.N. says "Something
is on her eyelids to draw attention to them. What? Eyepaint."
This, I maintain, is Mr.Nickels' wishful interpretation to
further evince his posture that make-up is SIN.

Does a whoreish woman always use eye paint to catch her men?     
Not at all. I've gone through High School -- been a single man
into my twenties. I've seen the loose teenage girl and young
woman -- they often had no eyepaint but knew how to use their
eyes to allure the male very proficiently. At the same time there
were the girls who did at times use eye paint without any "come
on" or sexuality about them at all. I have observed over the
years that from a sexual point, some women's eyes can be more
attractive WITHOUT any eye make-up at all, while some who do use
it become less attractive.

6. History also shows that JEWELRY goes back to at least 3,500
B.C. HARLOTS and perverted emperors and queens have used this
decoration as well as perfumes and good smelling oils to promote
lust, vanity, deception, fornication, and adultery.   
The use of something by the immoral does not automatically make
that something of itself evil.

7. R.C.N. is referring here to EZEK.23:36-49; JER.4:23-31; 2
KINGS 9:30-34. He would also include ISA.3:16. In all these
passages except 2 KINGS 9 (covered in point #8) we also see the
WHOREISH woman using JEWELRY. So if MAKE-UP is wrong because of
its connection with WHORES then the same deduction must be used
with JEWELRY. If the wearing of Jewelry is allowed by God for the
Christian woman (which it is) then these passages cannot be
teaching that Jewelry, in itself, is SIN, but that its WRONG USE
can be. To be honest with these passages we would have to use the
same logic with MAKE-UP as with Jewelry.

8. Mr.Nickels here tries to connect the sinful JEZEBEL with
eye paint, and so to his reasoning MAKE-UP is idolatry and
harlotry.  In quoting 2 KINGS 9:30 he underlines the words
"painted her face" but does not emphasize that she also TIED her
HEAD. Jezebel did TWO things -- put her eyes in painting AND
tied her head. If one is idolatry and harlotry SURELY THE
OTHER MUST BE ALSO! The Hebrew word for TIED is number 3190 in
Strong's Concordance and means: "MAKE WELL, lit. sound, beautiful
or fig. happy, successful, right." Jezebel took her hair and made
it look well, or beautiful. Surely R.C.N. would not have us
believe that for a woman to make her hair attractive is SIN? I
certainly do not, so if a woman should MAKE WELL her hair, should
she not also make well her eyes and other parts of her body? (I
speak this, of course, with proper moderation and what becomes
the occasion).

Let us be willing to take the context of the whole verse and
principles of the whole Bible, before we start to emphasize parts
that seem to prove our case.  Often the context proves not what
we desire it to prove at all, but just the opposite.

9. It would seem Mr.N. does say "tied" or "plaited hair" is
wrong because it was the mark (together with make-up) of the
infamous whore Jezebel.  He quotes 1 TIM.2:9 to support, I
guess, that God does not think such things are "light things."
Let us look at 1 TIM 2:9, 10 and also I PETER 3:3,4. Both
Passages are used by some to say PLAITING the hair, JEWELRY and
COSTLY clothes are SIN.    
I guess the NUDISTS could use I PET.3:3 to claim it is sin to
put on apparel.

Do these verses CONTRADICT the rest of the Bible on this subject?
Indeed they do not!

What many fail to see is that these verses are using a common
IDIOM of the time. An "idiom" is a manner of speaking distinctive
of a certain people or language. In this case, the idiom was a
manner of speaking which would minimize a first clause in order
to emphasize a second clause.

I quote from the book "WOMEN'S ADORNMENT" by Ralph Woodrow pp.
18-20.  
"Today, in order to express the thought contained in this
type of idiom, we would place the word 'only' in the first
clause, and 'also' (or perhaps 'rather') in the second clause, as
follows: 'Let not a woman's adorning be (only) that of outward
things -- such as fixing her hair, wearing gold, or pearls, or
apparel -- but (also, rather) let it be the inward adorning of a
meek and quiet spirit.' With this idiom, the emphasis is on the
second clause, BUT IT DOES NOT DO AWAY WITH THE FIRST CLAUSE.    
It is in addition to it ... John 6:27 ... If we do not recognize
the Hebrew idiom here, this verse would sound like a command not
to work for our food! But other verses say men should work for
their food ... Genesis 32:28 ... The meaning is that his name
would no more be called Jacob (only), but he would have another
name (also), the name Israel. The proof that this is the correct
meaning is seen by the fact that he was called Jacob many times
AFTER this, even by God himself ... Genesis 46:2 ... Jesus' words
in Mark 9:37: 'Whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but
him that sent me! In our way of speaking it would be:
'Whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me (only), but him
that sent me (also, rather).' .. Peter used the idiom when he
spoke to Ananias: 'Thou has not lied unto men, but unto God'
(Acts 5:4). Ananias did lie to men, but the emphasis is on the
fact he lied to God. Thus we could say: 'You have not lied unto
men (only) -- your sin goes further than this -- you have lied to
God'."

Contrary to what some want I TIM. 2:9 and I PETER 3:3,4 to say,
these verses actually show that women of God in the early true
Church were "plaiting" their hair, wearing gold, putting on
apparel, using costly array (at times), but Paul and Peter wanted
to emphasize to them that the most important thing was not
outward looks, but what shone forth from the heart and spirit.

10.  In quoting Ezekiel 23:40-44 Mr.N. underlines "paintedst thy
eyes", "old in adulteries" and "played the harlot". I suppose he
does this to try to prove make-up is connected with adulteries
and so is sin. Notice he does not underline the words "deckedst
thyself with ornaments." Now surely in this context if painting
the eyes is sin, then jewelry is also. If one of these things is
NOT sin then the others are not sin either. This section of
Scripture is not showing that beds, tables, jewelry, make-up, are
sin in themselves, but that the wrong use of them could be sin.

11.  Mr.Nickels in quoting Jer.4:30 says: "Notice! Israel
hadn't painted the eyes previously to her departure from God, as
shown by the word 'though'."

Look at that verse again and notice also, "though thou deckest
thee with ornaments of gold". If R.C.N. is correct in his
understanding of the word "though" as applied to painting the
face in this verse, then the same reasoning must be applied to
wearing jewelry -- Israel hadn't decked herself with gold
previous to her departure from God! 

But Mr.N. has already shown that was not the case in turning us
to Ezekiel 16 earlier in his paper, which section shows Israel
was covered by God with jewelry at their nativity.

Again this section in Jeremiah shows the WRONG USE of such things
as jewelry, clothes, and make-up, not that these things are sin
in themselves.

12/13.  What some human man or church organization deems as sin
or not sin, makes no difference to the truth, and Jesus said 
"Thy word is truth" -- that is, God's inspired infallible word,
the Holy Bible is truth -- not the ideas of fallible men or
denominations however sincere they may be. It is possible to be
sincere, yet be sincerely WRONG!
You, the reader, must take what R.C.Nickels has written -- what
I have written -- what others may give FOR or AGAINST the use of
make-up and jewelry AND WITH THE BIBLE as your foundation SEARCH
FOR THE TRUTH. It can be found -- Jesus said so!

14.  Certainly the least commandments (whichever you think they
are) and the greatest commandments are important to God. The
least sin or the greater sin is still sin in God's eyes.
But men had better be very careful when teaching others WHAT SIN
IS!
There are MANY things that God allows or disallows a child of His
to do as they choose, which is not sin if they do, nor sin if
they do not. An example would be to choose to be a VEGETARIAN
or not (Rom.14). God accepts you as much if you are a meat
eater or just a vegetable eater. There is no Biblical verse that
says MAKE-UP, PAINTING THE FACE, POWDERING the face is SIN! You
do not have to use make-up -- God accepts you just as much as
someone who does use make-up. Those who use it and those who do
not, need to be very careful not to condemn each other in the
vanity of being more Godly.

15.  If the use of make-up is sin and "in direct disobedience to
God's command" then indeed it would be conforming to the world.
If the use of COSMETICS, JEWELRY, BODY OILS AND POWDERS, and
PLAITED HAIR were clearly stated by God as SIN and of the world,
then, of course, we should not follow the world, but nowhere in
the Bible are these things of themselves stated to be sin.
Is it sin to "looknice"? Is it sin to change the appearance of a
run-down, weed-filled GARDEN and make it "look nice" with
colored flower beds and well cut grass? To use this "natural"
argument for the person should apply to things also. If it's
sin to "look nice" for human kind, would it not also be sin to
make HOMES, GARDENS, DOGS, HORSES, CITY PARKS, etc. "look nice"?
Should we then leave all homes unpainted and undecorated -- leave
it natural with whatever building materials we use? Should we
leave all parks and gardens in a natural state so we cannot be
accused of deception, lying, or vanity?  Should we not cut, oil,
and shape our hair, but let it be "natural" so we do not deceive?
Should women not remove any unwanted or unsightly hair from their
eyebrows, chin, upper lip, legs, under their arms, because that
would be "different than it naturally is" and vanity? Should we
not use "sexy" body oils, perfumes, powders, and aftershave
lotions, because that would be a part of this world and conceal
our true natural smell?
Some claim that to "be not conformed to this world" (Rom.12:2)
means NO jewelry  Others say NO bright clothes and so dress in
BLACK. Still others say NO TV, or Movie house going. To others
it's NO card playing or dancing. On and on it goes. Many believe
these things are, in themselves, SIN.

But the truth is that when given the acid test of the revealed
word of God -- the Bible -- none of the above together with
make-up can be proved to be sin of and by themselves.

There is indeed a way that SEEMS RIGHT unto men (Prov.14:12).   
Men seem to love to make SIN out of things that God never said
was sin of itself, and then, in their VANITY, put down those who
do not agree with their views as belonging to "the world."

16.  In this section the strong denounciation by R.C.N. of
make-up with sentences like, "Since the very purpose of painting
the face is evil, even a little evil in 'moderation' is still
evil!" (emphasis his) would indicate that there could be NO RIGHT
use of cosmetics in his eyes.

I will now put forth these cases for the reader to determine if,
indeed, make-up is always evil.

EXAMPLE ONE

A young lady has a birthmark on her cheek -- it is very
noticeable and cannot help but draw attention. She can POWDER
it over somewhat, and make it appear less obvious and by wearing
ROUGE on the other cheek, so no one would know she had a bad
birthmark on one side of her face.
Would this be sin for her to do? I do not believe so.

EXAMPLE TWO

A woman has a bad birthmark on her chin and half of her lower
lip. It causes her a great deal of embarrassment and
self-consciousness. She can solve the problem with liquid powder
on the chin and LIPSTICK on her lips. Would this "dressing up"
her face be SIN for her? I think not -- what do you think?

For these women MAKE-UP is a kind and merciful answer to a
problem that could have severe mental and emotional trauma if
make-up was not used. Some individuals like the Pharisees of old,
would BURDEN such unfortunate women with NO MERCY in their
selfrighteous position of "make-up is sin -- period." And would
not lift such man-made laws -- no not with one of their little
fingers.
Some may say, "These women would not be wearing make-up to
deceive or for vanity, so we'd allow them to use it for their
situation of a facial impediment." But that does not alter the
fact that POWDER and PAINT is on their faces. They both may
belong to the same Church -- others coming in to visit or new
members do not know the real reason behind their use of make-up,
and if that Church basically says make-up is sin, all they see is
a contradiction. Or does the pastor have to announce from the
pulpit each week why these ladies have make-up on, so the
visitors will not get upset?

Can we not see that a dogmatic, self-righteous attitude of
"make-up is sin -- period" could be very UNMERCIFUL and cause a
loss of self-respect and confidence in some cases (as given
above) not to mention mental pain, emotional stress and just
plain embarrassment.

I thank God that in His wisdom, love and mercy He never once gave
us a verse in His word that said "make-up is sin."

Mr.N. also puts NAILPOLISH as vanity or conformity to the world
and so is sin. Maybe he thinks painted fingernails are "sexy."
  
There are some parts of the female anatomy that if exposed too
much are indeed sexually arousing to men, but painted fingernails
I have never found to be one of them, and I believe my sexual
hormones are in pretty good shape (I wrote this back in the
1980s, during my early 40s).
Is it okay for a woman to wear a bright coloured FLOWER in her
hair -- bright jewelry -- a coloured pair of shoes -- maybe a
dress with a brightly decorated design or pattern on it, but SIN 
if she paints her fingernails? I find it nor reasonable or
logical to so think.
Would it be SIN for the ALBINO woman to wear false eyelashes or
false eyebrows so she can appear and conform to the majority of
the women of the world? Or is she to stay uniquely different to
draw attention to herself? That in itself could be VANITY.

17.  For some to seize upon a NAME of one of Job's daughters to
uphold the use of make-up is grasping at straws. I must agree
with R.C.N. in paragraphs 4,5,6, and 7 of page 19 in his paper.

18.  I must agree with RALPH WOODROW and disagree with Mr.
Nickels as to the common denominator of 2 Kings 9:30; Isa. 3:16;
Jer.4:30; Ezek.23:40.  I do agree with Mr.N. that a woman who
chooses not to wear make-up, but keeps her hair neatly, dresses
properly, uses a little jewelry and perfume should never be
labelled "dull and drab."
I have seen and known many very attractive ladies who did not use
powder or make-up at all.

19.  Ointments and perfumes are also used by WHORES.

20.  They (ointments and perfumes) can also be sexually
stimulating -- notice how "sexy" the T.V. ads are in promoting
perfumes and aftershave lotions. But are oils and perfumes sin in
themselves? Mr.N. shows they are not.

Now is it sin to use COLOUR on the face because WHORES do and
because it could be "sexy" while it is righteous to use "sexy"
perfumes? Is it sin because VISION is used for COLOUR while the
sense of SMELL for perfumes is holy? If make-up is sin because it
falsifies the natural, then so is perfume -- it falsifies the
natural body smell.
If make-up is sin because it is VANITY, is it less vain to use
aftershave oils or perfumes?

21.  Song of Solomon 4:1-3 " ... thy lips are like a thread of
SCARLET." Were the lips of Solomon's Bride "naturally red" as 
R.C.N. would have us believe?  To be sure some of the beauty
described by Solomon in this section may have been natural, but
he is describing what he SAW without any comment on natural or
make-up.  He saw her lips at this time as SCARLET. The Hebrew
word is very revealing -- if you take the time to look it up say
in THE THEOLOGICAL WORDBOOK of the OLD TESTAMENT.
The Hebrew for SCARLET is as the KJV translators knew -- a vivid
or bright RED. Can any normal person be said to have BLOOD
coloured lips? With the use of this Hebrew word are we not
justified in understanding Solomon's bride to have painted lips
-- scarlet coloured? I believe we are.
Verse 7: " ... there is no SPOT in thee." The Hebrew word for
"spot" here is MOOM. Solomon is here saying that his bride and
wife has no physical blemish or defect -- she is altogether
physically perfect. She was as physically perfect as a man
was to be who would be God's priest (Lev.21:17).

This has nothing to do with artificiality or added paint one way
or the other, as Mr.N. would want us to believe by his comment.
Concerning artificiality. Would it be wrong or artificial for a
white woman to expose herself to the sun and become TANNED? As
this tanning would not be her "natural" color are we to say it
would be sin for her to deliberately "sun tan" herself? Is she to
do all she possibly can to hide from the sun, so as not to change
her natural white skin God gave her at birth? Is being sun tanned
for a while (it doesn't last unless exposed to the sun
continually) a deceptive change (some women can look much
prettier with a tan)?
Solomon's bride was SUN TANNED (ch.I) without any condemnation!
Now the sun will bring out "freckles" on some ladies. Is that a
deceptive change? Or does it show God has built in changes within
the skin in some people? Does it not show that God is a being of
VARIETY, and variety and change within some people according to
the seasons of the year? Change then is not always wrong or
deceptive. The sun can bring some women not just freckles but
large unsightly brown spots and blemishes to her face. Now is it
sin for her to cover these over with POWDER or MAKE-UP? Is it not
more MERCIFUL to allow her to use make-up in order to expell any
embarrassment and a poor self-image because of certain natural
appearances we may have at different times in our life or seasons
of the year, when a little use of make-up, hair removal, etc.
would solve the problem? Is God more concerned with the physical
than the mental and emotional well being of the person? Is He
more concerned with sacrifice than mercy? Is it not written: "I
will have MERCY and not sacrifice. Go and learn what this means."

Some even today it would seem are still having
to learn.

Before we leave the Song of Solomon I want to draw these verses
to your attention: Chap.4:3 and 6:7-- "As a piece of a
pomegranate are thy temples within thy locks." We see from chap.
1:6 that Solomon's bride was well sun tanned, but he says later
that her temples are like a piece of pomegranate. Was he
commenting about the COLOUR of her temples? Was he saying her
temples were RED as the pomegranate? If so, then was she wearing
ROUGE? This may have indeed been the case.

22.  I agree here with Mr.Nickels that most cosmetics and
make-up contain many dangerous and harmful materials. There are
some companies that do market NATURAL cosmetics. Certainly the
Christian would want to seek out these manufacturers and use
their products.

23.  1 Peter 3:3-5 and 1 Tim.2:9-10 do NOT show that costly
jewelry, ornaments or apparel are to be avoided, as I have
previously shown.
Gold and Pearls are God-given. They show purity and fine
quality. Jesus wears a girdle of GOLD (Rev.l:l3). Surely it is
not wrong for a woman to wear EXPENSIVE jewelry if she desires.
Quality is often better -- it lasts longer and does not peel or
tarnish. The same can be said for CLOTHING -- quality usually
looks better, and it certainly lasts long. Brand names such as
Calvin Klein, Dior and other famous names, are not just well
known for their designing but are also synonymous with quality.  
There is nothing evil about QUALITY!
The heavenly city of Jerusalem that God and Jesus dwell in is
nothing but pure quality (Rev.21,22).

24.  I agree that the daughters of God should be modest in
wearing clothes. Tight-fitting slacks, tight sweaters, low
necklines MAY or MAY NOT be sexually arousing to men, depending
on the figure of the wearer -- wisdom should be used by the
Christian lady. The mini-skirt was designed by its designer to be
"sexy" -- that speaks for itself I think. I see nothing sexually
arousing in "button in front blouses" per se.  Some "pant suits"
are very feminine and attractive. I see nothing wrong with
wearing such to worship services or a formal dinner.
The unisex styles of clothing are not necessarily wrong per se.  
In Jesus' time both men and women wore ROBE/DRESS type of
clothing, as Mr.N. points out in paragraph 3 (p.25).

25.  R.C.Nickels says, "Men should not wear wigs or toupees."  
(p.27). I am not sure why he says this, unless in his view to
do so would be VANITY or "falsifying the appearance." If this be
the case, then should we not also apply the natural balding of
men with the natural losing of teeth (through heredity, bad diet,
or circumstances beyond our control) and forego artificial ones?
If, for men to wear toupees and false teeth is vanity or
falsifying the appearance, as opposite to the "natural look" then
what about the men who SHAVE?  It is natural for men to grow
facial hair. Is it sin, vanity, or falsifying NOT TO GROW A
BEARD?
For the most part I agree with R.C.N. in this section (except
where he applies I Jn.2:15-17 to make-up) and parts of paragraph
4.

26.  I see quite a difference between permanent TATOOS and the
proper and moderate use of make-up.
Certainly if a lady chooses not to use make-up but to develop her
natural beauty she is at liberty within God's law to do so and
should not be despised by anyone. On the other hand those who do
use a moderate amount of cosmetics should not be despised by
those who do not. This is the principle of Rom.14.

27.  There it is! Both sides of the coin. Now you must decide
what is the TRUTH. The right doctrine about MAKE-UP is a small
part (like Vegetarians or Meat-eating -- drinking Alcohol or not
-- Rom.14) of the "faith which was once delivered unto the
saints" - although some would paint it up and enlarge it into a
major doctrine. Men have always been good to make up what they
consider "a test of obedience" for others to follow, which if not
complied with make it easy for them to dismiss others as not
Christian.
I echo the words of Mr.Nickels when he wrote, "Let us not follow
deceptive arguments, 2 Pet.2:1-2. We should check up and prove
the teachings. How many readers of this article will take the
time to check Adam Clarke's Bible Commentary under Isaiah 3:16?

Well Mr.N. ... I have done so, and have given my research and
answers to your paper so others can find the truth.

You have been swift and hard to judge others in this paper on
MAKE-UP and other articles you've written. It is time, my
friend, to remember the words of Paul, "But why do you judge
your brother? or why do you set at nought your brother? for we
shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ ... So then
every one of us shall give account of himself to God." (Rom.
14:10-12).

Those who will teach others either by SERMONS or the PEN need to
tremble before what James wrote under inspiration of the Holy
Spirit. "My brethren, be not many teachers, knowing that we
shall receive the greater judgment." (James 3:1). It is indeed an
awesome responsibility to teach others the doctrines of God.

To finish my case I can do no better than to give you the last
chapter of Mr.Ralph Woodrow's book entitled "WOMEN'S ADORNMENT
-- What Does the Bible Really Say?" (Obtainable probably through
Amozon.com).

Quote from:

WOMEN'S ADORNMENT

Chapter 6

WOMEN'S MODEST APPAREL

     Though it may sound strange to say, the Bible does not give
an inflexible or uniform clothing code. It does not specify any
certain color - people in the Bible wore clothing of different
colors. As to style, various robe-type garments were worn, but no
certain style of clothing is commanded. As to material,
originally God made "coats of skins" to cloth Adam and Eve, but
this did not mean all people from then on must wear only leather!
Garments made from different materials are mentioned in the
Bible.
     We are told, however, that women should "adorn themselves in
modest apparel" (1 Timothy 2:9). What, then, is modest apparel?
Does this mean, as some have taught, that a woman cannot wear
short sleeves? How long must a woman's skirt be? Where does
modesty begin or end? One inch below the knee or an inch above?
Some churches make rules about the length of a woman's skirt. One
church set a certain number of inches above the floor as a
maximum. It didn't seem to matter that some women were shorter,
some taller than others! All skirts had to come with in the given
number of inches from the floor! In all cases, the skirt was long
enough to completely cover the knees - this being their major
objective.

     As to sleeves, some believe a woman must always wear long
sleeves so that her elbows are covered. But are exposed elbows
really so erotically stimulating that men might be tempted to
lust? I have lived in areas where the summers are hot. I have
seen women with their long sleeves, suffering from the heat. They
must keep those elbows covered! There they are, having their pie
and cake sales on the shopping center sidewalk to raise money for
their church Even the priests were not required to wear garments
which would make them sweat: "They shall not gird themselves with
anything that causeth sweat" - Ezekiel 44:18. I have wondered why
those who insist that knees and elbows must be covered at all
times do not require a face covering also. After all, would not a
pretty face be more attractive than a pair of knees or elbows?

     Do not misunderstand. I believe in standards of decency. But
when big issues are made about non-essential points, people are
driven to a legalism that hinders an effective Christian
testimony. I am opposed to the extremism.

     Ideas about "modesty" have varied greatly in different
countries.
     In old China, exposure of the upper-class women's tiny feet
was regarded as most indecent. They were considered the most
sexually stimulating parts of the body. Virgin goddesses were
sometimes portrayed with shoes, even when otherwise stark naked.
In early Japan, a woman's eyebrows were considered as among her
greatest charms. Some husbands would shave their brides' eyebrows
off in an attempt to make them unattractive to other men. Among
some people, a woman's hair was considered a sexual stimulant -
that the mere sight of her hair aroused a man's passions. Thus it
had to be covered.
     In Mohammedan countries where women must cover their faces
with veils, a woman's first reaction might be to cover her face,
rather than her body, if suddenly surprised while unclothed.

     Among tribes which wear no clothing, embarrassment is
experienced when one is made to put on clothing before others!
Australian aboriginal women who normally go about naked, will put
on feather skirts for certain indecent dances.
     There are missionary magazines which have carried group
pictures of native Women in Africa, some with bare breasts - a
custom completely unquestioned in many areas of the world - yet
the same magazines would not think of printing such pictures had
they been taken of women in this country. A foreign missionary
might preach in short pants - in common with his audience in
areas of extreme heat and humidity - yet in other places this
would seem quite out of place.

     What might be proper or practical clothing in Hawaii, would
be impractical and out of place in Alaska. What one might wear to
work in the yard would not generally be what he would wear to
church. What one might wear to swim in would not be practical for
shopping, etc. The legalist fails to admit that circumstances
alter cases.

     A skirt extending a few inches below the knees - which even
the very strict would now approve - might have been considered
improper during the last century when dresses extended almost to
the ground. When those dresses were shortened a few inches, it is
said that some men became embarrassed at the sight of a woman's
ankle. Later, when dresses were shortened even more - though the
hem was still below the knees - some became alarmed. As one
writer says: "The cry of Sodom and Gomorrah went up from every
pulpit in the country" (Muffs and Morals, p.30).

     I spoke once for a group that felt all their women should
dress the way women did in about 1900, fix their hair by styles
of that time, etc. This, to them, was the old-time religion. But
by doing this, they were actually drawing more attention to the
"outward man" than if they wore clothing similar to other women
of the time. By dressing in clothes radically different than
others, they defeated the very thing they supposed they were
accomplishing. Even plain or out of date clothes can be worn with
vanity - the very drabness or difference draws attention to the
outward person, not the inner man.

     How strict must we be? Must we lock ourselves away in total
silence - lest we speak a wrong word? There have been monks who
have gone for years without uttering a word. Did this make them
more holy? There have been men who have lived in monasteries or
deserted places so they would not see the face of a woman. But
did this make them immune to lust? What about their minds? Many
were like St.Jerome (fourth century) who confessed: "When I was
living in the desert ... how often did I fancy myself among the
pleasures of Rome! ... I often found myself amid bevies of girls.
My face was pale and my frame chilled with fasting; yet my mind
was burning with desire, and the fires of lust kept bubbling up."

     Some in an attempt to be holy even castrated themselves, one
notable example being Origen. St.Bessarion for forty years,
St.Pachomius for fifty years, never laid down while sleeping.
Macarius slept in a marsh for six months exposing his naked body
to poisonous flies. In Northern Syria, about 422 A.D., Simeon
built a column 60 feet high, on the top of which he lived for 30
years exposed to rain, sun, and cold.
     In a convent of the fourth century, 130 nuns never bathed or
washed their feet. Such was also the practice of St.Anthony and
St.Clemet. Some people carried heavy weights. St.Marcian
restricted himself to one meal a day in order to be continually
plagued with hunger. The morbid extremism in these examples is
apparent.

     Even in our time, some become so strict they are driven to
foolish extremes. The Bible is against making an idol or image to
bow down to it (Exodus 20:4,5). But some, completely
mis-applying this verse, will not allow their children to have a
doll or stuffed toy. One group went so far as to say that a
person should take all the labels off canned goods - that it was
idolatry to have a can in the house with a picture of peaches (or
whatever) on the can! They were against wall paper with flowers
on it. They supposed these flowers were images! Some will not
have their picture taken. I know people who have destroyed all of
their photographs, including irreplaceable family photos. One
sect considers the mirror an invention of the devil. A person
looking into it makes an image!

     Some people are so opposed to the evils of alcohol that they
will not use shaving lotion or flavorings that have an alcohol
content. Since the Bible says not to drink blood, some believe it
would be better to die than to take a blood transfusion. One
woman was against soda pop because the Bible says not to use
strong drink! There have been people who would not eat potatoes,
because the word "potatoes" does not appear in the Bible! And in
ways that are sometimes just as inconsistent, men have made a
series of "don'ts" for women. Don't wear lipstick. Don't wear
short sleeves. Don't cut you hair. Don't wear slacks. Don't wear
jewelry.  

     Some feel that if a doctrine is not harsh and strict, it is
not the "old-time religion." But a study of Acts 15 shows that
the apostles were against imposing rules on the people that
God has not placed on them. By this decision, they were not 
"lowering their standards" nor did it indicate any spiritual
laxness on their part. Where, then, do we draw the line? On
what basis should standards be measured? I can only say     
that as Christians we should turn our eyes upon Jesus. The
total attitude of Jesus - which was often in sharp contrast to
the unfruitful strictness of the Pharisees - should be our
example in forming Christian convictions.

     The Pharisees, compared to the Sadducees, might have been
considered the "holiness" branch of the Jewish religion. They
were very strict about their tithing, fasting, rules, and
regulations. They were known for their carefully washed hands,
their long robes, and long prayers. Yet with all of this external
religion, they missed the true program of God and failed to
recognize Jesus as the Christ. They would bind "heavy burdens and
grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders" (Mt.23:4).
In their zeal, they would "compass sea and land to make
one proselyte" (verse 15).

     Jesus spoke of them as "blind guides, which strain at a gnat
(or literally, strain out a gnat), and swallow a camel"
(Mt.23:24). So strict were they for the letter of the law, they
would strain their water or wine through linen gauze lest they
swallow a tiny insect. Yet, figuratively, they would swallow a
camel.

     The inconsistency to which their strictness had led them is
well illustrated by the case of the woman they brought to Jesus
who had committed adultery. They claimed she had been caught
"in the very act." They argued that Moses had said she should be
stoned. They had "Bible" for their argument.
Yet they failed to see their own attitude was wrong. In
committing adultery, it is evident a man was involved, but
nothing whatsoever was said about the man!

     It was only the woman they frowned upon and would have
stoned! Besides, how did they catch her in the very act? Were
they snooping around trying to find someone to accuse? The answer
of Jesus was that anyone without sin should cast the first stone.
When there were no accusers, Jesus said: "Neither do I condemn
thee: go, and sin no more" (John 8:3-11). "For God sent not his
Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world
through him might he sa ved" (John 3:17).

     How shocked those Pharisee leaders must have been when Jesus
said: "The harlots go into the kingdom before you" (Mt.21:31),
but repentance comes easier to sinners than to self-righteous
people who feel they have no need of repentance. Such is seen in
the case of the woman with whom Jesus talked at the well of
Samaria. She had been married five times and was now living with
a man to whom she was not married. For Jesus to talk to this
woman was contrary to the religious dogmas of the day. How did it
look for a preacher to be talking to a woman of questionable
character? Rabbis were not to converse with women in public or
instruct them in the law. A rabbi was not to even converse with
his wife, sister, or daughter in public or in the street!
Besides, she was a Samaritan, and Jews because of another
uninspired dogma - had no dealings with Samaritans. No wonder the
disciples "marvelled that he talked with the woman" (John
4:7-27)! But Jesus was more concerned about the needs of the
individual than religious rules made by people who suppose law is
greater than love.

     Considering the relative nature of modesty, seeing the
inconsistency to which a strict over-emphasis on nonessentials
points has led, and weighing all of this in the light of the
total spirit and example of Jesus, I think that certain
conclusions are apparent. The wisdom of a balanced view seems
clear. We should avoid the extremes, seeking rather the CENTER of
God's will. We need not wear rags to be holy, nor do we need to
have the most expensive clothes money can buy. It is possible for
a person through the use of makeup, jewelry, or some forms of
clothing to appear too flashy. But the other extreme, a dull and
drab appearance, is not a requirement for the victorious
Christian. Clothes can be worn too tight - and draw attention. By
the same token, the continual wearing of baggy clothes can also
be made a display. The balanced Christian view - of all of the
things that we have mentioned in this book - seems clearly to be
that we should dress according to the custom of our time and
country - with a sense of decency and wisdom.

     Let us take a stand for the high standards of the gospel;
let us stand firm for honesty, fairness, kindness, integrity, and
love; let us practice holiness, but let it be "true holiness"
from the heart, not a false holiness as that of the Pharisees.
Let us never confuse the over-all objectives of Christianity with
petty points of men's traditions, remembering that "the kingdom
of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and
Joy in the Holy Ghost" (Romans 14:17). 

     In essentials, then, let there be unity; in non-essentials,
liberty; and in all things, charity.

End quote

                           .....................

ADORNMENT—IS GOD A GOD OF BLACK AND WHITE ONLY???

 

Jewelry - Makeup - Cosmetics?

All the Scriptures!

JEWELRY - MAKE-UP - COSMETICS?

by Keith Hunt


MT.4:4
We must live by every word of God.

ROM.15:4
The O.T. is written for us to learn by.

GEN.24
Jewelry was used as BETROTHAL presents by God's people.

GEN.41:41-42
Jacob wore a RING and GOLD chain.

EX.3:22 11:2 12:35 
God told Israel to take the Eqyptians' Jewels and WEAR them.

EX.34:22-29 NU.331:50-54 
JEWELS dedicated to the Tabernacle - God accepted them.

I CHRON.28:10-21
God's House full of GOLD and SILVER.

2 CHRON.9:1-26
Solomon had Gold, Silver and Precious things

ESTH.8:2; 10:1-3
Mondechai - a man used by God, wore a RING.

ISA.61:10
God likens ornaments and JEWELS to Salvation and Righteousness.

PROV.25:12
A wise reprover upon on obedient ear, is like an ear-ring of
Gold.

EZEK.16
Israel (God's wife) was decked by God in Jewels and find clothes.

EX.39
The High Priests garments were made as God directed - full of
Gold.

MT.13:45-46
Christ likened God's Kingdom to a pearl of Great price.

LK.15:11-24
God is likened to a FATHER of two sons note v.21-23.

JAMES 2:1-3
In the church there will be RICH (wearing gold) and the poor (not
able to wear gold).

REV.1:12-13
The true Church is represented by GOLDEN CANDLESTICKS - Jesus
wears a GOLDEN breastplate.

REV.21:18-21
New Jerusalem is full of GOLD, and PRECIOUS STONES.


SCRIPTURES THAT SEEM TO BE AGAINST JEWELS

EX.33:4

Does this contradict EX.3:22; 11:2; 12:35?

No! Jewels are to make you happy - they are for days of rejoicing
(LK.15:21-23) - in this account of Israel notice verse 4. When
they heard God was going to consume them, they had no reason to
be happy - they mourned - this was no time to wear jewelry, so
they didn't. God told them - yes you need not be happy, take off
your jewelry and be mournful and sober. Moses then interceded and
God spared Israel. What was Israel's sin? Was it the wearing of
Jewelry that God was so angry as to destroy them? NO! Read from
Chapter 32.
It was the sin of making an Idol - a calf - and worshiping it
(CH.32:7-10) instead of God.

GEN.35:4

Is this a contradiction of God's word?
If earrings are wrong - so are garments (v.2). Notice v.2. Jacob
is telling his household to put away STRANGE GODS (heathen
worship) along with this to put away clothes and earrings - he
says change your garments - put different clothes on.
Yes, they were worshiping false God's in heathen costumes and
heathen decorations - just as many devil worshiping groups do
today. Do we not do the same at Halloween?
Jacob was telling them to get rid of all their idols and demond
costumes or ornaments.

ISA.3:18-26

Does this say Jewelry is of itself sinful?
If it does then God contradicts himself. God is talking to Israel
v.8. He says the women of Zion are haughty - puffed up - vain -
sexually loose. "...and walk with outstretched necks and with
undisciplined (flirtations and alluring eyes) tripping along with
a mincing and effected gait..." (Amplified Bible).

God is telling the women he will soon put an end to this miss-use
of femininity, beauty, clothes and jewelry.
Notice! If these verses say jewelry is wrong, so is - bonnets
(hats) headbands (v.20) changeable suits of apparel (should we
then wear the same suit or dress all the time? The Hutterites do)
cloaks (mantles) stoles and shawls (wimples) handbags (crisping
pins) v.22 hand-mirrors (glasses) undergarments (fine linen)
hoods and veils v.23 sweet smell, girdles, well set hair, rich
robe (stomacher) beauty v.24. See the Amplified Bible.

These things are not wrong in themselves it is the wrong use of
them.
The women here are using these things in a wrong manner - just as
they were using their eyes, neck and how they walked to a wrong
use.

EZEK.23:40-44

Again, it is the wrong use that God condemns - Israel is likened
to a woman who deliberately makes her self up to entice men.     
Notice! If jewelry is wrong so is washing (v.40). So is a good
bed (Honourable Mrg.Ref.) an Food on a Table (v.41).

I PET.3:3

If jewelry is here condemned so is - weaving (braiding, knitting)
of the hair and wearing clothes (we should all be nude then? No!
Amplified Bible says "Let not yours be the MERELY external
adorning .... But let it be the inward adorning and beauty of the
hidden person of the heart...." (v.3,4).
Yes, of course, the most important is what comes out of you -
your Christian personality. But notice v.5, the holy women of old
who trusted in God adorned themselves, with a meek and quiet
spirit yes (v.4 & 6) but read Gen.24 Rebekah - a woman of God -
she trusted God that he had chosen the right husband for her -
Isaac. Can anyone disprove that Isaac was not a man of God and
Rebekah a holy woman of God. Rebekah wore jewelry - Gen. 24:22,
29-30,47,48,50,52-53.

I TIM.2:9

Does Paul contradict the rest of God's Word? No! He simply says
here, be moderate - be balanced - don't go overboard with outward
appearance - the main thing is good works - a Christian
personality - then the physical you.
God is the most balanced person to ever live - He is
righteousness first - but does He have and wear jewelry? You bet!
Satan was created with great beauty (EZEK.28:11-13) and with
jewels but he lost his righteousness and ended up as Satan.
Christian character is to be first and then physical beauty
second. It's not wrong to have and wear nice clothes and a modest
amount of jewelry, but remember they will not save you.



MAKE-UP

ISA.3:16

"Wanton eyes". Some say this is "Falsely setting off their eyes
with paint."

Is this true?

What the different scholars translate - "and ROVING wanton eyes"
FENTON.

"and with Undisciplined (flirtations and alluring) eyes"
AMPLIFIED BIBLE.

"are always FLIRTING." GOOD NEWS BIBLE. 

"and OGLING eyes" MODERN LANGUAGE.

"With wanton eyes that rove among the crowds to
catch the glances of men." LIVING BIBLE. 

"GLANCING wantonly with their eyes" RSV.

ADAM CLARK'S COMMENTARY:

...... Hebrew, FALSIFYING their eyes.I take this to be the true
meaning and literal rendering of the word; from SAKAR. The
MASORETTES have pointed it, as if it were from SAKAR, a different
word...TH0UGH THE COLORING OF THE EYES WITH STIBIUM BE NOT
PARTICULARLY HERE EXPRESSED, yet I suppose it to be    
implied..."

Modern scholarship would agree with the Jewish MASORETE5 that it
is From SAKAR.

STRONG'S CON. says from SAKAR - "to OGLE i.e. BLINK -
coquettish - wanton." #8265.

Even if we believe this Hebrew means to "PAINT the eyes." Does
God here CONDEMN shading the eyes itself as SIN or the WRONG use
of the eyes whether they are shaded or not. The CONTEXT of the
passage will tell us! Notice verses 18-23 (see a modern
translation). If PAINTING the eyes is SIN, so are the use of ALL
things mentioned in v.18-23.

The Bible shows JEWELRY, CHANGEABLE SUITS OF APPAREL, FINE LINEN
etc. are NOT SIN! It is putting and using these physical things
to a WRONG PURPOSE that God CONDEMNS, not the things themselves.

JEZEBEL (2 KINGS 9:30-34)

Verse 30 Hebrew - "and she put her eyes in painting." Why was
Jezebel slain? Because she painted her eyes? NO! But because she
was an EVIL woman v.31-34 (I KINGS 16). Did only EVIL women use
MAKE-UP?
NO! Jewish history shows that not only their women but most of
the middle east nations used MAKE-UP.

JER.4:30; EZEK 23:40

God CONDEMNS the WRONG use of make-up. God is not a God of BLACK
and WHITE!


THE USE OF COSMETICS

PERFUME USE BY GOD'S PEOPLE

EX.30:22-23; 34-38 Song of Solomon 1:12-14 3:6
4:13,14; PS.45:6-8; PROV.27:9; ESTHER 2:12,13; JN.12:3

                              ...............

THROUGH THE BIBLE——SONG OF SOLOMON— SEXUAL DISFUNCTION— THE END

 

Appendix - Sexual Disfunction

How to Overcome it!

Dillow gives a long but very useful appendix - Keith Hunt


APPENDIX


NEW APPROACHES TO SEXUAL DYSFUNCTION


     Here, I have attempted to gather some specific information
related to two of the most common problems brought into my office
for counselling - premature ejaculation and orgasmic dysfunction
("frigidity"). While this material obviously is not derived from
an exegesis of the Song of Solomon, it has been so significantly
helpful to those with whom I have spoken that 1 felt it should be
included as an appendix to the book. This information has been
developed from consultations with gynaecologists counsellors
specializing in problems related to sexual dysfunctions, my own
counselling experience, and readings from some of the more recent
medical studies available.
     According to numerous studies, half the people reading this
mated will identify with the factors being discussed. In this
country, 50 percent or the marriages are "sexually dysfunctional
or imminently so."
     It is extremely difficult to reduce problems as complex as
these to paper. They really need to be dealt with by a qualified
Christian counsellor. The problem is that so few counsellors are
available. Dallas, for example, with a population of over one
million and an evangelical population larger than any other city
in the country, has not one Christian counsellor that specializes
in dealing with sexual problems Thus, to advise a Christian
couple to go see a counsellor (as many psychologists reading this
section would be prone to do) is like telling a blind man to see;
it's impossible! There isn't anyone! Thus, this information must
be communicated in written form.
     Having said that, some definite guidelines can be charted
that, when faithfully applied, can bring relief to many who read
this book If the "steps to solution" outlined here don't seem to
work for you, that doesn't at all imply there is something wrong
with you; it simply means the interpersonal issues are much more
complex than I can relate to on paper. Furthermore, if these
suggestions do not help, that by no means implies the problem
cannot be solved. So consider these ideas as tentative
guidelines, and trust the Lord to use them in your lives as He
sees fit.

FOUR GENERAL ATTITUDES TO AVOID

     These "attitudes to avoid" have been discerned in the
counselling office time and time again.

Avoid "blaming your mate"

     Numerous counsellors will say that until the couple begins
to view the marriage relationship as the "patient" instead of one
another, no progress can be made. The problem is not yours, or
hers, or his; it's your relationship that needs treatment. For
example, consider a husband who ejaculates prematurely (before
his wife reaches orgasm). His wife is not quite sure what to do.
If she is aggressive toward him, he might withdraw because he
fears the "failure" associated with another sexual encounter.
Communication barriers begin to develop. Now, as a result of the
scars built by submerged communication, they not only have the
problem of premature ejaculation, but that very problem has been
made incapable of solution because of the communication tensions.
Obviously, the interpersonal interactions of all sexual problems
play an enormous part in the cause and solution to sexual
problems.
     So, stop thinking he has a problem or she has a problem; it
should be WE have a problem. This is part of what Paul meant when
he said:

     In the same way husbands ought to love their wives as their
own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no
one ever hated his own body but he feeds and cares for it, just
as Christ does the church - for we are members of His body. For
this reason a man will leave his father and mother and will be
united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. This is a
profound mystery, but I am talking about Christ and the church.
However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves
himself, and the wife must respect her husband (Eph.5:28-33).

     You see, your mate's problems are your problems because you
are one, just like Christ and the church. The proper attitude is,
"Let's both of us go to a counsellor and see if we can get some
insight into our problem."

Avoid the "spectator role"

     This is one of the most damaging barriers to sexual
stimulation. Instead of getting totally involved physically with
one's mate, forgetting everything else and lust "letting" sexual
arousal happen naturally, a person may mentally set himself apart
and observe his own responses. A person adopts this role because
he or she is afraid of failing to respond, and as a result, all
stimulation is blocked.
     Thus, a couple struggling with the problem of an impotent
husband is handicapped because he is continually standing outside
the situation looking to see If he is able to get an erection.
Decide to stop worrying about your response and simply lose
yourself in the pleasures of sharing your mate's love.

Avoid goal-oriented performance

     Too frequently, couples set the overcoming of particular
problems as the goals of their sexual encounters. This creates a
fear of failure - will I achieve my goal? If a wife has never had
an orgasm, the goal of sex may become her achievement of that.
Every encounter is entered into with the attitude, "Will we fail
again?" This fear of failure is the greatest barrier to success.
The man who cannot maintain an erection has fears every time he
approaches his wife sexually. He is completely distracted by the
thought that he might not have an erection. This worrying about
an entirely involuntary process is worse than useless. The wife
worries she might make it worse.

     The wife who can't achieve orgasm often expects her husband
to "do something." He doesn't know what to do. He asks himself
why he can't satisfy her and worries so much about his own
performance that he can't relax.
     As will be discussed later, a major step in solving any
sexual problem is to structure special sessions where it is
understood by both husband and wife before the lovemaking session
begins that nothing is expected.

Avoid myths

     Many myths about sexuality are often involved in sexual
problems. The only way to avoid them is to become sexually
informed.
     For example, some believe a "peak" or "explosive" orgasm is
normal for all women. This is simply not true.
     Unfortunately, many men still embrace the myth that penis
size has something to do with their being able to sexually
satisfy their wives. It actually has nothing to do with it. After
all, the vagina can accommodate the head of a baby! The issue in
satisfying your wife is not the size of the penis, but how you
use it.
     Another myth is that simultaneous orgasm is the normal or
even the best way to have sexual intercourse. Miles reports in
his surveys that only 13.7 percent of the couples regularly
experience simultaneous orgasm. It is extremely difficult, if not
sometimes impossible, to time responses that are basically
involuntary. There can be just as much joy and self-giving love
involved in a husband first of all stimulating his wife to orgasm
and then her satisfying him, or vice versa.

PREMATURE EJACULATION

     One evening after speaking at a seminar on marriage, a young
woman came up to ask about a problem in her sexual relationship
with her husband. She had been married five years and had never
had an orgasm. In most cases this problem has psychological
causes, so I began to ask her some standard questions to see if I
could discern the root difficulty. It turned out that she didn't
seem to have any psychological difficulties with sex. She
thoroughly loved sex and was very much in love with her husband
She had no bad attitudes that she was aware of, and she just
couldn't explain it.
     Finally, after some fifteen minutes of discussion, it
occurred to me to ask her how long intercourse lasted. She
paused, thought for a moment and said, "I think about thirty
seconds"
     She thought something was wrong with her because she
couldn't have an orgasm in thirty seconds! Few women can. For
most, it takes from five to ten minutes of clitoral stimulation
for a climax. About 12 percent require ten minutes or more. On
the other hand, 75 percent of men can climax in under two minutes
     During the early years of marriage, most women are usually
tolerant and understanding about premature ejaculation. But after
a while, a wife's frustration level may begin to rise, and she
may begin to resent her husband, feel used, and make accusations,
either verbal or implied, about his failure as a man. Each sexual
encounter becomes more and more painful emotionally. He tries to
delay his climax.
     His wife, on the other hand, has no confidence in his
chances for success in the matter and consequently is grabbing,
thrusting, and demanding in order to achieve satisfaction before
he ejaculates. The friction she causes on the penis and the
stimulation of an active and aggressive wife only triggers his
orgasm sooner. This may ultimately lead to impotence due to the
continual psychological few of failure. A cycle begins. He won't
approach her because he's afraid he'll be premature, and she
won't approach him because she doesn't want to be left
unsatisfied.
     Actually, this s one of the simplest of all sexual problems
to resolve. In 97.5 percent of the cases (according to one
study), it can be totally eliminated in a matter of weeks?
     Surprisingly few men are aware of how to achieve control;
most fail to realize the basic reasons for the lack.
     Often, involvement in premarital sex is a major cause.
Premarital encounters are often in the back seat of a car, or in
the parents' home, where the emphasis is on getting it over
quickly without getting caught. The goal becomes male
satisfaction as soon as possible. The result is that in just a
few encounters the man learns a selfish approach to sex and sets
habit patterns that are reinforced for years in marriage.
     A husband should be able to enjoy fifteen minutes of
continuous thrusting and be able to build to thirty minutes of
actual intravaginal containment (not continuous thrusting). This
doesn't necessarily have to characterize every lovemaking
session, but you should have this capacity if you and your wife
are going to experience all the sensations God intended a husband
and wife to enjoy in their love.
     Premature ejaculation is defined as the husband's inability
to control ejaculation for a sufficient length of time during
intravaginal containment to satisfy his wife in at least 50
percent of their times of sexual intercourse.

     In the following pages I'll outline the treatment procedure
developed by Masters and Johnson that has brought relief to
nearly 98 percent of the couples who have applied it.

STEP 1- Eliminate past myths.

     There are two main myths that hinder solution.
First, it has been taught that because men reach orgasm more
quickly, the wife should refrain from direct stimulation of the
husband prior to intercourse. The contrary is usually true. A man
is more likely to reach orgasm prematurely when he goes
unstimulated through a long period of preparatory arousal for the
woman. Because he becomes so preoccupied with the time for
intercourse, anticipation builds to an unbearable degree.
Furthermore, through stimulation, the wife can bring him to a
sexual peak prior to orgasm that actually reduces the need to
climax immediately, Of course, for the wife to refrain from full
participation removes the sense of physical intimacy and mutual
experience. The whole experience is reduced to getting her ready,
entering her, and ejaculating immediately. There is little
opportunity for intimacy.
     Secondly, the myth that the man is supposed to put his mind
on other things needs to be rejected. I've seen Christian books
in which the man is instructed to mentally recite Bible verses to
get his mind off the pleasure he is experiencing! Others counsel
him to worry about business problems. There are two basic
downfalls to this "solution." It doesn't work, and it spoils the
sense of enjoyment!

STEP 2 - Commit your situation to the Lord as a couple.

     Ask one another's forgiveness for any hurts that may have
developed in your marriage because of this problem, then join
together in prayer asking the Lord to give you the wisdom and
unconditional acceptance necessary to implement these steps. If
you are unable to pray about it openly in front of each other,
you do not have the necessary acceptance and freedom level to
solve the problem. If you can't pray about it, there are some
things in your relationship that need to be resolved before you 
be able to work at this. Most sexual problems are either caused
by spiritual and relationship problems, or they are made more
complicated by these factors.

STEP 3 - Employ the "squeeze technique."

     Agree on a session of sexual stimulation with no goal
orientation. There will be no intercourse and no "failure," just
mutual sharing of love. The wife should sit at the head of the
bed with her legs spread. The husband lies between her legs on
his back with his head pointing toward the foot of the bed. His
genitals are now dose to those of his wife. The wife lovingly and
gently caresses her husband's genitals, especially the head of
the penis or wherever her husband directs her, to encourage him
toward orgasm.
     As soon as he approaches orgasm, he gives the signal and she
applies the "squeeze technique." She places her thumb on the
underside of the penis just where the shaft ends and the head
begins (the frenulum). She also places the first two fingers of
that same hand on the opposite side of the penis, then squeezes
her thumb and first two fingers together with very had pressure
for at least four seconds. She should squeeze as hard as she can.
(On an erect penis this will cause no pain) This pressure will
immediately make him lose his desire to ejaculate, and he will
lose some of his erection. After fifteen to thirty seconds, she
repeats the procedure, manipulating him to full erection again
and repeating the squeeze. 

STEP 4 - Intercourse in the "woman above" position.

     After learning some control, the husband lies on his back
and the wife uses the squeeze technique two or three times: she
then straddles him and, leaning forward about 45 degrees, very
gently and slowly inserts the penis in her vagina. She should
remain motionless--giving her husband a chance to achieve
control. If he feels he is going to ejaculate, she merely raises
her body and repeats the squeeze procedure, then gently reinserts
the penis. After a few sessions of practice in this position, the
husband is to thrust just enough to maintain his erection until
they can stay in this position for fifteen or twenty minutes
before ejaculation. The "male above" position is the most
difficult in which to maintain control.

STEP 5 - Intercourse in lateral coital position.

     After control increases, the couple is encouraged to move
from this female superior position to the lateral coital position
(sideways). Lying on her right side, she leans forward to he
against his chest as she extends her right leg behind her. He
bends his left knee, keeping it under her leg and flat against
the bed. This position leaves both partners with the greatest
freedom and comfort as well as the best ejaculatory control. It
has been found that couples who have tried this position use it
(by choice) about 75 percent of the times they have intercourse.

STEP 6 - Repetition once a week for six months.

     You should use the squeeze technique at least once a week
for the next six months and practice it for about twenty minutes…

     Complete ejaculatory control is usually attained in six to
twelve months. By this we mean the husband develops control to
the point where he can restrain ejaculation indefinitely.

     While the couple is learning these steps, it may be
necessary for the husband to use manual stimulation or other
agreeable means to give his wife sexual fulfilment.
     It must be noted here that there often is temporary
impotence after the premature ejaculation problem is solved,
primarily due to increased frequency of the sex act.
     Researchers tell us the squeeze technique is never effective
if done by the husband on himself - the wife must be involved.
Even if you are not having problems with premature ejaculation,
but you don't have sufficient control to maintain continuous
thrusting for fifteen minutes, this technique can be used to
build your control up to as long as your wife desires. By making
sideways motions with his hips the husband can stimulate his
wife's clitoris without bringing any friction on the penis,
significantly lengthening the time of intravaginal containment.

     The most common combination of problems brought up during
counselling in regard to sex is premature ejaculation coupled
with "frigidity." This inability to climax is the most common
sexual dysfunction of women.
     It has many causes. Religious background and negative
religious attitudes about sex often are major factors. The most
common factor is partner dissatisfaction. For some reason she
does not respect, trust, or admire her husband. A lack of strong
mate leadership is often related to the problem. Some women
simply have no sense of feeling in their vaginal areas. This is
almost always of psychological origin.
     There are those who believe an overemphasis on toilet
training can be the first step toward orgasmic dysfunction later
in life! The little girl may be rushed into toilet training
before she is ready, and a big trauma develops over having bowel
movements. The little girls begins to think of her genitals as
dirty because it was made into such a big deal.
     Heavy petting before marriage is a major factor. The
"start-stop" pattern is developed. Then she gets married and
doesn't know how to keep going.
     The double standard of our society which says it's wrong for
the female but right for the male often carries over into
marriage. A routine and unimaginative approach by the husband
often results in orgasmic dysfunction.
     Most important, as mentioned earlier, are you a shepherd to
your wife? Does she feel secure and totally accepted? Is there an
intimacy of relationship? Are you a leader? Do you communicate
strength and tenderness?

     In the following pages I will enumerate some steps toward a
solution. Let me carefully qualify before I begin. Orgasmic
dysfunction is an extremely complex issue and these steps may be
helpful to only a few of the wives reading this book. It is
impossible to put something this delicate and involved into a
series of steps. Every situation is different; every relationship
is special.

STEP 1- Become factually informed.

     Frequently this problem, like so many, is due to lack of
knowledge of some very simple physical, psychological, or
emotional factors. The best way to become factually informed is
to read reliable books. Here are some suggestions.

"Understanding Human Sexual Inadequacy," Belliveau and Richter
(Bantam Books). This excellent title text is a summary of some of
the key findings of Masters and Johnson. 
"Human Sexual Inadequacy" (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company,
1970). There are chapters devoted to solutions of all sexual
dysfunctions common in marriage: impotence, premature
ejaculation, orgasmic dysfunction, painful intercourse,
vaginismus, sex in the aging etc.
"The Freedom of Sexual Love," Joseph and Lois Bird (Image Books,
Doubleday & Company,1970). It is generally Biblically based and
is very frank and specific.
"Physical Unity in Marriage," Shirley Rice (Tabernacle Church of
Norfolk, 7120 Granby Street, Norfolk, Virginia 23505). This book,
a sequel to "The Christian Home, A Woman's View," is loaded with
practical biblical and medical counsel. The book grew out of a
series of lectures Mrs.Rice has given around the country.
"Sexual Happiness in Marriage," Herbert J. Miles (Zondervan,
1967).

STEP 2 - As a couple, commit your (plural "your") problem to the
Lord.

     He is extremely concerned and grieved by the needless pain
and tension this has caused your marriage. He desires to help.
Open, frank prayer together about this issue will do much to open
up communication channels and bring the spiritual dimension to
bear on the situation. James says, "You do not have because you
do not ask God" (James 4:2).

STEP 3 - Re-establish communication.

     There must be a total freedom of discussion between you on
sexual matters. "And the man and his wife were both naked and
were not ashamed" (Gen.2:25). There was no shame in Adam and
Eve's sexual relationship; there were no inhibitions.
     If there are communication barriers developing in your
marriage over a problem; several things might help open them up.

     Take the text of the Song of Solomon printed out in Appendix
2 of this book The husband should read the parts of Solomon, the
wife the parts of Shulamith and the chorus. As you read, stop and
comment on any items in the commentary that strike you as points
for discussion. Then move on to the next verse. Use the Word as
the basis for your discussion!     

STEP 4 - Discern and overcome any negative feelings toward men.

     Frigidity is like a log jam on a narrow stream, says
psychiatrist Robinson. When two or more logs jam up, all the rest
of the logs are blocked and cannot flow down the stream. A
gigantic jam stacks up behind the two logs. The emotional
problems, hurts, and communication barriers of frigidity are like
that jam. When two logs are pulled out, the whole jam begins to
flow down the river once again. The emotional jam we call
frigidity is often held in place by two basically negative
attitudes. The first is a negative attitude toward men, and the
second is a rejection of one's role as a woman.

     How can a negative attitude toward men be overcome? Marie
Robinson suggests a simple answer, but it takes time. The
Scripture says, "As a man thinks in his heart, so is he" (Prov.
23:7). Paul tells the believers in  Rome, "Do not conform any
longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the
renewing of your mind" (Rom.12:2). Begin by giving yourself some
time alone every day. It may be ten minutes, or it may be half an
hour, but do it regularly. During these private sessions, explore
your inner attitudes toward men. Strive to feel all your negative
emotions about your husband. You are advised to "only aim at this
point to let these negative feelings come to the surface, to seek
them out, experience them to the full."  Do this by picking out
some small but repeated irritation or annoyance he causes you -
the more trifling, the better. Fix on it, then dare to allow your
emotions and thoughts about it to become dominant. Do not repress
them as you have trained yourself to do over the years.
     It needs to be emphasized that it is quite possible you will
not have any negative thoughts about men at a conscious level.
One woman seemed to be annoyed only at her husband's sloppiness.
He left his clothes lying around the house and wouldn't put his
shaving cream away after using it in the morning. These were, as
far as she was concerned, mere trifles, and weren't worthy of her
emotional focus. She had suppressed them for years.
     Under counselling, she was encouraged to explore this
"trifle" to see if there was anything there. As she allowed
herself to feel her irritation fully, she began to uncover a vast
log-jam of emotional resentment against men in general that she
had never been aware of at a conscious level. She interpreted her
husband's sloppiness as a symptom of his desire to treat her as a
slave and to confine her to demeaning labor. Her anger became
more explosive as she continued to reflect on the matter.
     It quickly led to her underlying attitude about men in
general. All men ever do, she reasoned, is attempt to enslave
women and exploit them. All they want from women is sex.
Furthermore, they are physically superior and therefore capable
of enforcing their demands.

     Does your husband's behavior in public embarrass you? Has he
any annoying habit? Select some petty things, and allow yourself
to feel the full range of emotion that may lurk underneath. In
the beginning you are likely to find no very strong feelings or
passionate generalizations. But if you persist you will probably
find an area where your feelings are indeed intense and negative.
These emotions have remained hidden from your subconscious mind
for many years because of their emotional intensity.
     Most frigid women believe their negative attitudes about men
actually represent reality. It is important to realize your
investigation is not going to prove your hidden fears to be
valid, but will prove them invalid. And the emotions are not
overwhelming therefore, there is no need to fear this emotional
exploration process. It is of utmost importance to recognize in
advance that whatever emotions turn up are feelings and not
reality.
     What good does all this do? One of the major contributions
of modern psychiatry has been the establishment of the fact that
attitudes and feelings have the power to do lasting harms only
when they are hidden from one's awareness. As soon as these
negative feelings become fully conscious, they automatically lose
the major part of their power to do harm. Once irrational
feelings are externalized and can be looked at logically, the
drive toward normal psychological health takes over, and release
occurs. The next step is to commit them to the Lord and ask Him
to remove them from your life.
     Furthermore, you must look in Scripture to see the true
picture of masculinity. Jesus was very aggressive; he was very
courageous; he was a very masculine man. These characteristics,
particularly aggressiveness, are not wrong. They do not represent
an attack on the female sex or an attempt by men to dominate.
They are part of God's design into male biology.

STEP 5 - Deal ruthlessly with any fantasies.

     Some frigid women are dissatisfied with their roles as
women. They daydream about various jobs and vocations that are
more "valuable" than being wives and mothers. Often they spring
from a childhood desire to be an actor, artist, dancer, or
concert pianist. Sometimes they concern becoming a corporation
president, a doctor, or a lawyer - anything but a beloved wife.
     These daydreams protect the daydreamer from an inferiority
complex. It doesn't matter that she is unable to love: someday
(perhaps next year) she will be an actress or a lawyer.
     Dr.Robinson suggests the next step in overcoming orgasmic
dysfunction is to recognize this daydream for what it is. Let it
roll on and on. Dwell upon its glamor. Explore all the details of
the fantasy. It will soon become apparent that it is impossible.
The dream that has been hidden just below the threshold of
consciousness is now totally exposed and seen for what it
is--pure childishness. Once the objective factors take over, the
dream subsides.
     And it must subside because it has become a psychological
defense mechanism preventing the frigid woman from surrendering
totally to her role as a woman. As long as a woman clings to
these impossible notions, the blockage in her emotions prevents
her from dealing realistically with life. She is not an actress
or a corporation president, and God probably doesn't intend that
for her. If she is married, God's will for her is to put her
husband and children first, and to find her identity and security
in total yieldedness to her husband. She must literally "believe
and let go" if she's going to experience orgasms.

STEP 6 - Strive for a biblical and positive view of men and the
male role.

     The frigid woman tends to fear or resent male dominance and
aggressiveness. She views it as a threat or an attempt to exploit
her. "All he ever wants is sex," she may say. However, male
aggressiveness was built into men by the Creator. Before Eve was
created, Adam was given the command to name the animals. In the
Hebrew culture, to have authority to name was to have authority
over. Thus, Adam named Eve (Gen. 2:23), indicating his authority
over her.
     Note this was before the Fall. Thus, God's original ideal is
that the man is in control, and the female is under his
authority, this is not an arrangement forced into the course of
human affairs because of sin, but is God's original intent. Thus,
when your husband takes initiative, when he is competitive, when
he is aggressive, he is simply fulfilling his biological destiny
built into him by the Creator. It is now a proven fact  that
there are innate differences between the sexes. The Lord gave man
the male hormone, androgen, which is responsible for
aggressiveness. Men with a double chromosome tend to be
hypermasculine, very tall, aggressive, impulsive, and often
violent and delinquent from an early age.
     Marie Robinson maintains frigid women must make a
re-evaluation of the male sex. These women often have little real
knowledge of what men are actually like. Men seem to be powers,
not people. By making a re-evaluation and seeing that male
aggressiveness is God-given, she can begin to understand her
husband as he is and achieve the ability to love him in all of
his uniqueness and individuality.
     Because a woman's energies are mainly directed inward, in
preparation for motherhood and maintaining a home, she often
misunderstands her husband when he takes a neat home for granted.
He has invested a major portion of his pride elsewhere - in his
work. He is doing the business to which God has called him. His
sloppiness does not indicate his indifference to his wife;
however, the frigid woman will often interpret it that way. He is
rejecting her sphere as unimportant, she reasons.
     The sex act itself most typically represents male
aggression. The thrusting of the penis becomes offensive to the
frigid woman. To a normal woman this is of course highly
desirable, but the frigid woman can personalize it as an act of
aggression by men against women.
     She is antagonistic to aggression and does not understand
it. His strength and ability to master her environment makes her
feel drab. If men were out to enslave women, women could be
justified in fearing, hating, and envying man's central strength
and aggressiveness. But is he? Once a woman examines this central
point, her whole basic attitude can be changed.
     Consider the burden upon the average male. In the name of
love, he sets his personal freedom aside and marries, thereby
taking on the responsibility to provide. He shoulders full
responsibility for his wife and children.
     As a woman, think for a moment how you would feel if your
child were suddenly deprived of food, shelter, and clothing.
Generally, these thoughts are only casual passing thoughts to a
woman, but a man carries them daily. Every morning he realizes
his success or failure in business determines his family's
happiness and security. Women, unless they are very close to
their men, do not realize how seriously the average husband
takes this responsibility. The responsibility at times becomes
enormous. The competition in the market place today is
increasing. The economy is unstable. Every man knows if he
falters in his job, he can be easily replaced. Few women could
take the daily strain the average man assigns to himself when he
signs the marriage contract.
     Consider your husband's aggressiveness in light of the
tremendous duties and responsibilities God has placed upon him.
He is responsible before God to rule and have dominion over the
planet. He is responsible to provide for his own: "If anyone does
not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate
family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever"
(1 Tim.5:8).

     As you consider your husband's aggressiveness in this light,
you can see it is a necessary part of him if he is to fulfil
these responsibilities. Then you are able to feel admiration
instead of anger, resentment, or envy. Far from seeking to
enslave women through their strength, husbands use that strength
and aggressiveness for just the opposite reason - to protect and
care for their loved ones. He makes it safe for you to be
feminine, to bear children with a sense of security, and to raise
them. You know he is always watching over you, protecting you,
and is terribly anxious about your safety and happiness. By
looking at the end to which male aggression is directed when it
matures, can any woman honestly hold such resentment? The same
male aggression that initiates the sexual act is the aggression
that protects her, provides for her, and allows her to be a wife
and mother.
     Frequently his male ego, his sloppiness, his irritableness,
his slackness are simply the outlets for a day "on the hunt." He
doesn't necessarily tell you of all his humiliations, defeats,
and things that upset him during the day because he doesn't want
to burden you with them. It you see him in this light, it will be
difficult to harbor any deep-seated resentments.

 STEP 7 - Surrender to your role.

     It should be clear by now that a central thesis of this book
is that there is an immediate connection between the Bible's role
relationship teachings and a woman's capacity to experience
orgasm in marriage. May I now suggest that an approximate synonym
for "frigidity" is "lack of submission"! Furthermore, an
approximate psychological synonym for "orgasm" is "Yieldedness."
It was encouraging to me to see a secular psychiatrist, Marie
Robinson, making the same observations.
     There are two basic logs in the emotional log jam that
prevent normal orgasm in women. The first is a negative attitude
toward men, coupled with envy of their role and what it would be
like if wives could live out their fantasy roles. The second
major log jam is role reversal.
     Once these two logs are removed, the whole river begins to
flow naturally and all of a woman's basic emotional and spiritual
drives will push her into normal orgasm. Of course, many women
who rebel at the idea of submission and are quite hostile to men
nevertheless do experience an orgasm of sorts. But it is a
surface physical release, not the full-throbbing, deep-seated
convulsion involving the total body, soul, and spirit that is the
biological and spiritual destiny of the totally yielded woman.
     Furthermore, there are many outwardly submissive, feminine
women who either never experience orgasm or who experience a
surface orgasm on the level of mere physical release. However,
may I advise these women to seriously consider their inner
feelings toward men and to inquire into their understanding of
total submission and what it means practically.
     In a word, the biblical definition of total submission is
"no resistance." Resistance is like logs in the emotional jam
that block the emotional flow of the river. Dr.Robinson explains;

"As the woman who has suffered from frigidity explodes her
groundless fears one by one and explores a new attitude toward
men, toward love, toward motherhood, feels a new esteem for her
husband - all these things happen, her lifelong restlessness
begins to depart. For the first time she realizes just how
restless she has been, how unsatisfied she feels, how
precariously balanced her life, inwardly and outwardly, has
always felt. Now something deep within her relaxes, lets down.
When this happens, she is beginning to experience the essential
attribute of all that is truly feminine, spiritual tranquility."

     The Women's Liberation Movement will, perhaps more than
anything else, increase the very problem its leaders think they
will solve - this inner female restlessness and lack of a sense
of fulfilment. Betty Friedan calls it the "problem that has no
name." Since nearly 40 percent of American women do not regularly
experience orgasm, and since that experience is related to
biblical teachings on role relationship, the Women's Liberation
Movement falsely concludes that biblical role relationship was
the cause of the "restlessness." Just the contrary - it's the
failure to apply the role relationship teachings of the Bible
that has caused the "problem that has no name." It's the male
failure more than the female, but the Bible is not the problem;
it's the failure of human beings to apply its principles.
     It's said that a few upper-class female intellectuals have
been given a platform to project their own personal problems onto
all American women. Most American women have no problems with the
notion of role relationship. In theory because they sense that
God built these concepts genetically into male and female
relationships. The application of the role relationship is
generally complicated by the failure of men to assume a
shepherd's role.
     For a woman, full orgasm requires a total trust in her
partner. The full physical experience is so intense there is a
momentary loss of consciousness. She feels as though she s
hanging from the edge of that three-story building and is
instructed to "believe and let go." She can't do it unless she
trusts completely.
     Do you as a husband provide that atmosphere of trust and
security by assuming responsibility for her, protecting her, and
demonstrating self-giving love? Sometimes men tend to be so
thoughtful and considerate of their "wife's problem" that their
lack of firmness is interpreted as passivity and a lack of
masculine strength which can cause her to lose respect and trust.
In sexual intercourse, as in life, man is the actor and the woman
is the one acted upon. To give oneself in this passive manner
involves total trust. Any vestige of hostility, or fear of ones
role, will clearly show in the sexual embrace.

     You must be more than willing to submit to your husband in
general. There must be a genuine excitement about the act of
surrender pictured in sexual intercourse itself. There must be an
eagerness to surrender. Have you ever wondered why Paul taught
that sexual intercourse was intended by God as a portrait of
Christ and the church? He says of the one-flesh relationship
(sexual relationship), "This is a profound mystery--but I am
talking about Christ and the church" (Eph.5:32).
     The church submits totally to Christ. Indeed, the individual
believer eagerly submits to Christ, and the result is what?
Peace, joy, emotional freedom and release, new love and all of
the fruits of the Spirit. Sex is to picture that same total
submission by the wife and total protection and love by the
husband.   

     In light of this discussion, let's consider 1 Pet.3:1-6.
"Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that,
if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over
without talk by the behavior of their wives, when they see the
purity and reverence of your lives."

     A common problem then, as well as now, is a believing woman
married to an unbelieving husband. Notice, Peter says he is to be
won to Christ "without talk" (without any preaching), but by
godly behavior. One aspect of the behavior is a "submissive"
attitude.
     3:3 Your beauty should not come from (ONLY - as taught by
the rest of the Bible - Keith Hunt) outward adornment, such as
braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes.
     3:4 Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the
missing beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great
worth in God's sight.

     The arrival of this gentle and quiet spirit results directly
from the fact that a woman really allows herself to trust her
husband (no resistance) in a very deep sense. This inner spirit
is exactly the opposite of Betty Friedan's "problem that has no
name" or the restlessness of American women. Feminine tranquility
of spirit is a very precious thing to God. The only other time He
uses the phrase "great worth" is in reference to the precious
blood of Christ.
     The frigid woman can trust no man. Consequently, her
approach to life is very painful and difficult. She feels
responsible for everything. She certainly can't just let go and
trust her husband to take care of it! Details overwhelm her. She
has to fight her feelings and resentments about her role just to
get routine housework done.
     The biggest obstacle to submitting totally is fear. Peter
notes this concern in verses 5 and 6.

     3:5 For this is the way the holy women of the past who put
their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were
submissive to their own husbands.
     3:6 like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her
master. You are her daughter if you do what is right and do not
give way to fear.

     Notice the last word, "and do not give way to fear." If some
of you men are wondering why your wives don't seem to support
you, but instead always compete with you, they may be afraid of
what will happen if they let go completely. That fear that no one
will take care of them, that no one will assume responsibility,
carries over into the marriage bed. It can be a major reason for
her inability to have orgasms. She is afraid to trust you
completely because she suspects you might do something similar to
what Abraham did to Sarah.
     In his fear for his own life, he told his wife to sleep with
a foreign king (Genesis 20). Note, however, that Sarah obeyed
Abraham, and God intervened. God does not always intervene, and
if it had come to sleeping with that king, Sarah should have
disobeyed her husband. But she obeyed him and trusted God, and as
a result God protected her where her husband failed.

(Now that last sentence by Dillow is off the wall. The account
gives no indication that Sarah would have gone ahead and slept
with the king. God's commands come FIRST, above whatever a man
may say, you OBEY God. A husband has NO right to tell or allow
his wife to sleep with another man. God did in this case
intervene, but if He had not, Sarah would have refused the king's
desire, and would have then told the truth about Abraham being
her husband. If Sarah had gone ahead and slept with the king, she
would have sinned, and two sins do not make a right - Keith Hunt)
 
     Here is the tremendous advantage the Christian woman has
over the non-Christian woman in overcoming the problems of
inability to achieve orgasm. The Christian woman can place her
trust in God, obey her husband, and find a sense of security (to
a degree) that would come from trusting one's husband. Hence she
can submit totally even when her husband is disobedient to the
Word, because her protection comes from God, and He will never
fail her. Sarah overcame the fear barrier by realizing her
ultimate trust was in God, wives today can do the same.

(BUT again, if Dillow is teaching, a wife can sin because she
follows his leadership and authority, then Dillow is off the wall
and from planet Pluto. NO ONE, in marriage or out of marriage,
has to SIN because a man has some authority per se. A man's
leading and authority in marriage COME TO A STOP, if he tells or
tries to command his wife to SIN! - Keith Hunt).

     As an illustration of these principles at work in real life,
allow me to share Mary's story with you. Mary is a very
intelligent businesswoman. She was phenomenally well-organized
and efficient, and was able to run a business with her husband
and maintain a good home at the same time. In her marriage she
was always the leader. In fact, she and her husband had talked
the situation over, and both had agreed she was more competent
and should be the leader.
     It was her goal in life to be the president of her own
corporation. She hated the word submission and was in constant
competition with her husband. She wanted to do the best, do the
most, and insisted on her own ideas. Surprisingly, for thirteen
years of marriage they had a very good relationship and genuinely
loved each other. Their communication was good and their love was
deep. However, in the sexual area, their marriage was in
jeopardy. She had never been able to have a climax. They were
relatively wealthy, and could afford extensive psychological
counselling. They flew to more than twenty states and had
numerous sessions with many doctors and counsellors. Nothing
seemed to work. Finally, she found Christ, and a new life began.
     Shortly after her conversion, she attended a marriage
seminar for women my wife teaches around the country. There, for
the first time, she understood the beauty of role relationship as
portrayed in the Bible. All the false notions were removed, and
she was able to eagerly submit to her new role. Here is an
excerpt from one of her letters:

"It seems incredible to me that Jesus has given me so much in
life. . . then to dump all of this joy on me is overwhelming.
Since your seminar, He's made it so easy for me, maybe knowing
that I had the farthest to go, knowing that I had to change every
fiber, every attitude I'dd developed for thirty-three years. Only
He knows how I fought the word "submissive"! Only He knows how I
wanted to lead, be the best, do the most, be the perfectionist,
show my ideas! My giant ego. Now he's given me a new plan and a
new purpose for my life. My only daily goal now is to do whatever
pleases Bill. God's plan has taken away my competitiveness, my
aggressiveness, and given me the strength to become a whole new
person. My husband has become the most wonderful leader you could
ever imagine. Our home is so happy, so free of stress, free of
tension that everyone who visits can almost see the light that
Jesus has turned on in every room. Bill is no longer just part of
my life, he's my whole life. My career may have to go. . . if it
does, I know my Lord will replace it with something many times
more meaningful, of that, I have not one doubt."

(That's a whole lot OTHER BALL GAME than teaching a woman, wives,
have to sin because her husband is in authority - Keith Hunt)

     When this family began to implement God's plan, new life
flowed. Mary, for the first time in her life, now experiences
orgasm regularly in less than three minutes! The turning point
was when she decided to surrender. In her case she actually made
a contract with God on the day she surrendered. Here is how she
worded it:

"I, today, Wednesday, November 20, vow to myself, not to suggest,
tell, nag, or criticize Bill on how to run his business. I will
bite my tongue, leave the premises or whatever necessary, not to
give my opinion. My knowing that my opinions are right will be
satisfaction enough - no one else need share how smart and
terrific I really am. I am now willing to accept his business
failure to enforce this rule!! I will read this each day before I
start my work. If I should fail to achieve this goal even twice,
I will quit my job, knowing it is a hindrance to my becoming 'The
Total Woman.'"

(I have no doubt that this is what SOME women may have to do, if
happiness in ALL their life is needed. Then on the other hand, a
man who does not have the sense to see that his wife has some
very good "brains" and that he needs to take her counsel or
opinion on matters, perhaps needs to go and see a "servant of the
Lord" who knows how to guide him in good logical sense - Keith
Hunt)

     Mary discovered the secret of sexual surrender, and once the
emotional log jam was released, the ability to orgasm flowed
naturally as a part of her spiritual destiny. 
(It is very difficult for many women to step outside this world, well  
Western world, to know that  being a wife and mother as God wants,

          is the very best thing a woman can be; as within the context of 

        "a virtuous  woman" of Proverbs 31: 10— Keith Hunt)


STEP 8 - Overcome inhibitions.

     Besides the psychological blocks mentioned in Step 7,
probably the second biggest emotional barrier to achieving orgasm
is inhibition. Most women come into marriage with a fair share of
inhibition, and a marriage license doesn't automatically take
that away. These inhibitions can block the freedom of total
emotional release.
     Inhibitions not only plague the non-orgasmic woman, they
stifle the orgasmic woman as well. They are frequently the cause
of much tension and resentment on the part of the husband. Often
a wife desires to be otherwise, but hasn't the faintest idea how
to deal with the problem.

     The first step in removing inhibitions is the renewal of the
mind. You must saturate your mind with God's viewpoint on sex. If
you have read this far, you have already begun that process. But
it's not enough just to read in order to have our minds
transformed. It needs to be saturated with Scripture. "Do not
conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be
transformed by the renewing of your mind" (Rom.12:2). Because the
world tends to flaunt the body and sex, it is natural for
Christians to associate inhibition with Christian modesty and the
"sacredness" of sex. Actually, based on the Song of Solomon and
the rest of the Bible, inhibition outside marriage reflects
Christian modesty but within marriage reflects the pattern of
this world. The world system cheapens and degrades sex, but
paradoxically, within marriage many women are still inhibited.
Because the world exploits the female body to the ultimate, some
Christian women desire to be the opposite of the world. The world
exposes the body, so they conceal it. They are not going to be
like the nasty women in the Playboy centerfold and reveal their
bodies to their husbands or do the things "those girls" do.
     In order to saturate one's mind with Scripture, it must
first be memorized. May I suggest you consider memorizing
passages from the Song of Solomon or the rest of Scripture
relating to sex (1 Cor.7:1-5; Gen.2:21-25; Eph.5:28-33; and
especially Prov.5:15-20). Select passages from the Song that are
particularly meaningful to you. Many women have found Song 7:1-9
especially helpful in this regard.
     Not long ago my wife counselled a woman who was having
severe problems with inhibitions. Every time they made love, the
emotional blocks almost paralyzed her from making any kind of
positive response. My wife gave her the above advice and told her
to memorize some meaningful Scripture from the Song and repeat
them to God in prayer all during the week. In the Song, Shulamith
reflects on her husband's body (Song 5:10-16). She reflects on
their lovemaking experiences (Song 7:1-9; 1:15-2:6; 4:1-5:1).
     These passages might be a good place for you to start.
My wife told her she was going to call her in one week to have
her repeat over the phone all the verses she had memorized. A
week later she recited over twenty verses she had memorized and
meditated on during the week. When asked how it had helped, she
exclaimed, "It's like a miracle; meditating on God's Word has
completely released me." She said that while she was making love
with her husband the old blocks would sometimes come up. She
would immediately meditate on the relevant Scripture passages,
and the Word of God would erase the block!

          Look ladies God created sex; he gave women a body that needs to be caressed

          all over; lots of foreplay before the Penis enters the Vagina.  Sex was made to be 

          the most pleasurable act the human body could experience— Keith Hunt


     Along with the meditation, it is important to decide in your
will that you will be what your particular husband needs
physically. We often tend to wait for our feelings. But in the
Christian life God wants us to live by our wills. He wants us to
make decisions, and then the feelings will follow. So now you
must do whatever you have had a block about. Don't wait for the
inhibitions to somehow just vanish away. Probably the longer you
wait, the more inhibited you'll become. It's not going to get any
easier.
     One woman said that early in their marriage her husband
asked her to tell him in detail everything he could do to please
her physically, and everything she was going to do to pleasure
him.
     The embarrassed bride said with a gulp, "In detail?"
And the husband replied, "Yes honey, in detail. I would really
like you to do that."
     She had a choice to make. She could either say to her
husband, "That really embarrasses me; I just can't do that" Or
she could overcome her embarrassment and do what she knew God
wanted her to do - please her husband. The first time she was
embarrassed; the second time it got a little easier, and the
third time it wasn't very difficult at all.

(Huuuummmm, maybe it will work for some men and women, maybe a
woman can eventually do something like that, BUT frankly, some
may not be able, and SO the husband SHOULD NOT MAKE AN ISSUE over
it. He also better learn that he has to adapt to his wife - Keith
Hunt).

     Give God time to work. It's a process. I've known women who
have been released from all inhibitions overnight, but that is
the exception rather than the rule. One woman confided that from
the time she really knew what God said in Scripture, it took her
nearly two years to completely overcome her inhibitions, but it
was a steadily upward climb.

          (Then there are couples who do not speak during sexual relations; there is no

          Scripture to say you must talk, but you may need to talk to each other before 

          or after sexual relations about your sexual relationship— the pos and cons - 

           Keith Hunt)


STEP 9 - Exercise and develop the P.C. muscle.

     A recent medical discovery has enabled millions of American
women to experience orgasm for the first time in their marriages.
It all began in the 1940s, when Dr. Kegel, a California
gynecologist, was treating female patients for stress
incontinence. This problem afflicts many women. It involves the
passing of urine accidentally when they laugh or sneeze and can
obviously be very embarrassing. Dr. Kegel speculated that the
muscle supporting the birth canal and the urinary passage could
be the key. Thus he developed a set of exercises for his patients
to try to develop and strengthen this muscle. The exercise proved
beneficial, and today these exercises, known as the Kegel
exercises, are standard technique in cases of stress
incontinence.
     As his patients began to report their progress, many of them
announced something completely unexpected - they were
experiencing orgasms for the first time. Kegel was sceptical at
first that there could be any connection with the exercises, but
the repeated coincidence of improvement in stress incontinence
with orgasmic function led him to believe there was something to
it.
     It is now an established fact that poor muscle tone in this
P.C. muscle (puboooccygeus muscle) is a factor in the orgasmic
dysfunction of millions of women. It used to be thought the
problem was entirely of psychological origin, and in most cases
it is. In some, however, it's simply a matter of poor muscle
tone. Nearly 40 percent of American women register a lack of P.C.
muscle control.
     Control can easily be learned. In fact, knowledge of this
muscle is common in other cultures and is frequently a part of
marriage preparation. In one African tribe, for instance, no girl
may marry until she is able to exert strong pressure with the
vaginal muscles."
     If these exercises are faithfully applied, control can be
developed in six to eight weeks. The muscle can be fully
developed in about eight months, after which it can exert
pressure on the penis like that of a clenched fist. It is then
even possible for a woman to bring her husband to an orgasm while
in the female above position by doing nothing but contracting
this muscle - with no other movement. Thus, when you as a wife
develop this muscle for your own benefit, it is also a definite
factor in giving increased pleasure to your husband.

(Yes, it is very true, this is the muscles in the vagina area of
the female body - Keith Hunt)

     How then can the P.C. muscle be developed? The best way to
team the feeling of the contraction is to remember that this is
the muscle that holds back the flow of urine. However, there are
other muscles besides the P.C, which also help control urine
flow. In order to keep these other muscles out of the exercise,
urine flow must be controlled with the knees widely separated.
Once the flow has begun, make an effort to stop it. After a few
trials, most women can recognize the sensation and can repeat the
contractions anytime, anywhere. There is very little physical
effort involved. Once the contraction is properly learned, it is
no more difficult than blinking the eye.
     You should begin every morning with five or ten contractions
before arising. Work up to six contractions in a row, at ten
intervals a day. This totals sixty contractions. Each contraction
should be held for about two seconds at this stage. Thus, sixty
contractions involve a total of about two minutes a day.
Gradually the number of sessions should increase. Twenty
contractions per session bring the total to 120 (four minutes a
day). If this is done while urinating three times, as well as
once before arising, once at some other time, and once after
retiring, the total of 120 is reached. In six weeks you should
work up to 300 contractions a day with fifty contractions at each
of six intervals. Now, only hold the contractions for one second
each instead of two. Thus, we are talking about a total of 300
seconds a day or a mere five minutes!
     You should be able to note some sexual changes within three
weeks. Full development can be achieved in six to eight weeks. If
this exercise is kept up for nine months, gradually increasing to
about 600 contractions a day (about 10 minutes), the vagina can
be developed to give unusual pleasurable sensations to your
husband during intercourse

(Dillow has got to be joking - 600 contractions a day! Most women
ain't got that much time. You should be able to develop that
muscle in WAY less time, just got to learn the pressure push
needed in that part of the body - Keith Hunt)

     The value of this exercise is not only physical but
psychological. It is helpful for a wife to fantasize about
gripping her husband's penis while attempting the exercise. This
cannot help but focus your mind on sexual thoughts and will
likely increase your desire. Thus, this exercise becomes an
excellent way of bringing your level of sexual desire up to your
husband's. Furthermore, it can give a woman a sense of an
"active" part in sexual intercourse. The P muscle offers a
concept of the vagina, not merely as a receiver of action, but as
an actor.
     It is very importamt hat a woman struggling with frigidity
have an active attitude toward achieving orgasm, She must eagerly
reach out and strive for the orgasm. She can't just wait to see
if it will happen. It is not selfish to reach out for this
pleasure, and it is not wrong to think sexual thoughts about your
husband during the day. Shulamith did (Song 5:10-16).
     For a full explanation of the P.C. muscle and its place in
sexual function, may I suggest you purchase "The Key to Feminine
Response in Marriage" by Ronald M. Deutsch (New York: Random
House, 1968).

STEP 10 - Develop tactile sensation without any intention of
moving to orgasm.

     Some frigid women have absolutely no physical sensation in
the vaginal area at all. They are not even conscious of sexually
pleasurable feelings. This situation is mainly of psychological
origin, but along with the psychological steps (Steps 1-8), these
last four steps of a physical nature can be helpful. However, do
not try to implement these physical procedures without first
dealing as thoroughly as possible with the spiritual and
psychological issues. Those are the foundation, and we are now
discussing the superstructure.
     As a woman learns to yield, genital sensations will
gradually increase. It is helpful, however, for her to learn to
feel sexually with external physical techniques also. This can be
done in several ways. Have your husband give you a body massage.
Make it long and loving. The purpose is simply to help you become
aware of sensual feelings. Love can be communicated by touch.
     It Is very important that both partners have a mutual
agreement that the purpose of the session is not to bring the
wife to an orgasm. If she feels she is supposed to climax as a
result, the goal orientation will set in and may block her
response, The goal at this stage is not to climax but simply to
learn awareness of tactile feelings all over the body. Your wife
might like you to draw fur or silk scarves across her body and
breasts. Again the goal is simply a relaxed enjoyment of one
another's presence, loving conversation, and learning to feel
tactile sensations not necessarily of a sexual nature. Obviously,
it will be necessary for the wife to bring her husband to a
climax toward the end of the session either manually or through
intercourse. But her orgasm is not to be considered part of the
session unless for some reason she wants to.

STEP 11 - Practice structured genital sensation.

     Once tactile awareness is being built (perhaps after five or
six sessions), Masters and Johnson suggest that structured
genital stimulation begin. Once again, the goal is not orgasm,
but learning to feel sexuality. In Step 10, the genitals should
be avoided. In this step they should be concentrated on. There
must be no demand on the husband's part for his wife to achieve
orgasm.
     The husband sits leaning against pillows at the head of the
bed with the woman seated between his legs, her back against his
chest and her head resting on one of his shoulders. This position
is conducive to a sense of security and trust as the husband's
arms are felt around her. She separates her legs and extends them
across her husband's legs. The husband now has full access to any
part of her body. The wife should then place her hand lightly
over her husband's so she can signal him to touch more lightly,
heavily, or in a different place. Thus, she can communicate her
wishes in a physical way without having to talk.
     Clitoral stimulation should be along the side of the
clitoral shaft rather than on the glans (head). Touching the
glans (tip) of the clitoris too soon can reduce her sexual
tension immediately or may actually cause pain. Start with light
stroking motions on the breasts, belly and thighs, then to the
genital area as the wife directs.
     The effectiveness of this session is not in any way related
to whether or not she achieves an orgasm, because once again,
that is not the session's purpose. The purpose of this exercise
is to give the woman a chance to focus on her own sexual
feelings, to discover what her preferences are, and to
communicate this information to her husband. When the wife
knows that nothing is demanded of her, that she has complete
freedom to express herself, and that she will soon have another
chance for sexual activity, there is a build-up of sexual feeling
that eventually will result in a climax. The response is
impossible to will or to force.

STEP 12 - Intercourse in the female above position. 

After three or four sessions of Step 10, shift to several
sessions of actual intercourse in the woman astride position.
Begin penetration very slowly; the wife must control it
completely. She should hold herself still so she can savor the
feelings of penetration without any demand to climax. Shortly
after entry, she should begin to contract the P.C. muscle as this
will help focus her sensations. As her sexual tension elevates
and she wants more stimulation, she can move slowly back and
forth on the penis for a brief time. Only after three or four
sessions of this, or when sexually demanding feelings begin to
develop in the vagina, should the man begin any pelvic thrusting.
He should then thrust slowly and in a non-demanding manner,
letting her determine the pace she prefers.
     Obviously, this whole procedure will require the husbands
total cooperation. He must demonstrate enormous amounts of
self-giving love (as Christ loved the church) and sympathy, and
live with his wife in a truly "understanding way" (1 Pet.3:7). It
will be necessary for the wife to satisfy her husband during each
session, but her orgasm is not to be the objective until it just
happens as the culmination of all the steps.

                            ...................